Why IP Author is the Smart Choice for Patent Prosecution?
The only patent drafting tool with AI-powered precision—smart features that enhance claim accuracy, streamline office actions, and preserve your patent's strength.
Powered by advanced generative AI, IP Author enables attorneys to handle complex cases with efficiency, meeting the demands of modern patent prosecution.
How IP Author Stands Out from Competitors
See why IP Author provides faster, more precise office action responses than any other AI tool on the market.
|
Parameter
|
IP Author
|
Solves Tool
|
Dip Tool
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Precise Identification of Missing Elements
|
Provides detailed identification of missing claim elements, reducing manual review time.
|
Misses important details, requiring manual review of file history.
|
Sometimes provides incomplete or incorrect identification, increasing risk of missed details.
|
|
Focus on Minimal and Targeted Amendments
|
Suggests minimal and precise amendments to maintain claim strength and avoid unnecessary limitations.
|
Often suggests unnecessary amendments, complicating the claim structure.
|
Occasionally introduces errors or redundancies in amendments, requiring correction.
|
|
Maintains Claim Scope with Simplicity
|
Recommends few, concise changes that preserve the integrity of the original claim scope.
|
May overcomplicate amendments, risking limitations on claim scope.
|
Generates overly complex amendments that risk limiting the protection scope.
|
|
Better Argumentation Structure
|
Provides clear, logical arguments with strong and weak points identified, enabling informed strategy.
|
Offers generic, shallow arguments that lack depth and require manual refinement.
|
Provides disorganized arguments that require significant effort to structure into a coherent response.
|
|
Customization and User Control
|
Offers extensive customization, allowing users to tailor arguments and amendments to client preferences.
|
Limited customization, making it difficult to adapt to specific client needs.
|
Lacks flexibility, frustrating users who require more control over responses.
|
|
Faster and More Accurate Amendments
|
Delivers fast, accurate amendments fully supported by the specification, helping meet deadlines effectively.
|
Frequently suggests amendments not supported by claims, leading to rejections.
|
Slower processing time and higher error rates, requiring additional correction time.
|
|
Strategic Suggestions for Complex Legal Arguments
|
Excels in providing nuanced legal suggestions, helping navigate complex office actions confidently.
|
Lacks depth in handling complex legal issues, leaving users to manage tricky cases alone.
|
Provides limited support for complex legal arguments, requiring additional manual input from the attorney.
|
IP Author Vs Applicant Submitted Office Action Responses
IPAuthor's suggestions were largely effective in addressing both technical and legal challenges in patent prosecution, particularly in applications where detailed technical amendments were required. We found an average relevance score of 80% when compared to the applicant-submitted arguments and amendments.
|
|
Arguments comparison
|
Amendments comparison
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Application number
|
IP Author suggested
|
Applicant submitted
|
Match score
|
IP Author suggested
|
Applicant submitted
|
Match score
|
|
US16/931,779
|
The invention provides for an attachable-and-detachable database session.- Allows clients to intentionally detach from and reattach to the session.- Includes proactive management of the session's lifecycle and maintenance in a detached state.
|
A database platform that provides a variety of database sessions, including connection-specific and attachable-and-detachable sessions.
|
60%
|
"wherein the request specifies a unique session identifier for the attachable-anddetachable database session;"
|
"2 different sessions: connection-specific database sessions and attachable-anddetachable database sessions"
|
50%
|
|
US16/914,111
|
Gurovich does not disclose or suggest a user interface displaying an icon for the second mobile device in a predetermined position.- The icon’s position is based on the location of the second device being within a first spatial region relative to the pointing direction of the first device.- This predetermined position is critical for providing visual context relevant to the user’s perspective.
|
Gurovich and Qui do not disclose or suggest determining, based on distance and angular information, that the second device lies within a predefined spatial region relative to the first device’s pointing direction.- Qui does not suggest using angle and distance measurements for locating the device within spatial regions relative to the pointing direction of the first device.
|
75%
|
"wherein the predetermined position is determined by an importance metric calculated based on a combination of the probability of the second mobile device being located in the first spatial region and an importance score assigned to the first spatial region."
|
"plurality of spatial regions" which is similar to the tool suggested amendment.
|
85%
|
|
US17/147,806
|
The use of a machine learning module with a neural network for detecting and identifying noises is not merely the presence of a neural processing unit.- The specific application of machine learning techniques to this problem is not obvious from prior art.- Examiner has not provided evidence suggesting that this application would be obvious to a person skilled in the art.
|
Nasir does not address deficiencies of Marti.- Nasir does not disclose using a machine learning module with a trained neural network to detect and identify noises in the received sound signal, as recited in claim 1
|
90%
|
"Detecting the noises in the received sound signal using a machine learning module with a neural network" and few other words added.
|
"detecting the noises in the received sound signal using a machine learning module with a neural network"
|
90%
|
|
US15/703,709
|
Bennett et al. do not teach 'determining a remote electronic device based on the command.'- This involves understanding the command's intent and context to select the appropriate device.- Haubrich et al. contribute voice command authentication but do not suggest integrating this with determining a specific device.
|
Bennett does not disclose "determining context information associated with the in-ear device" and then "determining a remote electronic device based on the command and the context information."
|
95%
|
"wherein the remote electronic device is determined based on a location of the in-ear device within an environment and the remote electronic device is associated with a user profile specific to the wearer;""wherein the signal includes a modification of the command based on the user profile."
|
"determining context information associated with the in-ear device; determining a remote electronic device based on the command and the context information;
|
95%
|
What our customers are saying about us
As a user for over 1 year (and certified LLM Engineer + patent practitioner), I vouch that IP Author has been improving consistently and still appears to be the market leader for search and quick drafting.
Why Patent attorneys choose IP Author over competitors
Precision in Identifying Claim Gaps
IP Author provides a detailed identification of missing claim elements, saving you from time-consuming manual reviews.
Minimal and Targeted Amendments
Avoid unnecessary claim modifications—IP Author suggests only essential amendments that maintain the integrity of your claims.
Efficient Argumentation Structure
Structured, logical arguments give you clarity on strategy, reducing the need for extensive manual edits.
Full Control and Customization
Tailor arguments and amendments to your client’s specific needs with IP Author’s extensive customization capabilities
Speed and Accuracy
Meet deadlines effectively with fast, accurate amendments that minimize rejections.
Used by these amazing companies worldwide
